fix: api ergonomics follow-up

[DaleSeo]

Motivation and Context

Just a quick follow-up on PR #715. This update fixes a few issues with the with_* builder methods before we finalize everything at 1.0.

The new methods now accept Option<T> instead of just T. This means you can use .with_title(None), which compiles but doesn't do anything and will trigger a warning from Clippy. It's simpler to just skip the method if you don't have a value. Also, two methods, with_logger and with_content, had the with_ prefix but were actually standalone constructors, which was confusing. The macro code in rmcp-macros has been updated to reflect this change, so it won't call the method if an attribute isn't set.

Since we're already making changes on the way to 1.0, it makes sense to include this now. After the stable release, we would need a whole new major version for what is really just a minor issue.

How Has This Been Tested?

All existing tests pass without modification to their logic.

Breaking Changes

These methods haven't been released yet, so in practice no consumers should be affected.

with_* methods that accepted Option<T> now take T:

// before.with_title(Some("my tool".to_string())).with_stop_reason(Some(reason))// after.with_title("my tool").with_stop_reason(reason)

If you were passing None, just remove the call.

with_logger and with_content are now builder setters instead of constructors:

// beforeLoggingMessageNotificationParam::with_logger(level,"my-logger", data)// afterLoggingMessageNotificationParam::new(level, data).with_logger("my-logger")

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation update

Checklist

• I have read the MCP Documentation
• My code follows the repository's style guidelines
• New and existing tests pass locally
• I have added appropriate error handling
• I have added or updated documentation as needed

[alexhancock]

why are annotations and execution done this way instead of the same way as title/icons/meta?

[DaleSeo]

Good catch, @alexhancock! Refactored the code so all optional fields follow the same pattern and the generated code is a clean method chain again.